Read labelled power-curve trends

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. It also hints at response contents ('supporting activity and source type'), but omits details on parameter dependencies, date range behavior, or default handling, which is a gap for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single concise sentence that leads with the action and includes relevant scoping information. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It does not explain what 'labelled' means, the exact output structure, the handling of no parameters, or the interpretation of monthly bests across a date range. The description is insufficient for reliable agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description partially maps to parameters via 'sport or sport family' and 'source type', but entirely omits startDate and endDate. It does not explain how dates influence 'monthly bests' or the logical requirement to specify at least one of sport/sportFamily despite no required parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Return monthly bests for selected power durations' with scoping via 'sport or sport family' and supporting activity/source type. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling trend tools like get_ftp_history or get_vo2max_history.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a use case but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer selection from the title alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.